Govt seeks to quash pleas against suo motu law

Top court again requested to form full court to hear matter

ISLAMABAD:

The federal government on Saturday urged the Supreme Court to reject the petitions challenging the law aimed at curbing the top judge’s discretionary powers to take suo motu notices and form benches.

Instead, it stipulates that these powers will be vested in a three-member committee, comprising the chief justice of Pakistan and two-senior most judges.
In a separate application, the government also demanded the formation of a full court to hear the pleas against the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act 2023, despite its similar request --albeit made informally -- being recently turned down by the SC.

In a concise statement, Additional Attorney General for Pakistan Amir Rehman submitted the federal government’s eight-page response to the SC bench hearing the petitions against the law.

The government maintained that the bill had become an Act of parliament after it was passed in a joint sitting last month.

“The instant petition[s] [are] clearly an attempt to prevent the advancement of justice, independence of judiciary and availing of remedy to persons aggrieved of any judgment and/or order of this Hon’ble Court passed under Article 184-3,” it read.

It added that the petitioners had approached the court “with unclean hands, lack bonafide and as such, are not entitled to any indulgence by this Hon’ble Court”.
“In terms of Section 2, the power to constitute benches, which is thereto vested in the Hon’ble Chief Justice under the Supreme Court Rules, 1980 (the SC Rules), is to be exercised by a committee comprising of the Hon’ble Chief Justice and the two next senior most judges of this Court,” it added.

The government argued that the concept of Master of Roster, had no statutory backing.

It added that the law would regulate the authority of the chief justice of Pakistan under Article 184-3 of the Constitution.

The government noted that the law would not reduce the powers of the judiciary.
It argued that the law had given the right to appeal under the authority of Article 184-3.

It continued that Article 10-A of the Constitution gave the right to a fair trial, adding that the power of revision in Article 184-3 was very limited.

The response stated that the right to appeal was essential to a fair trial.

It contended that the Act could not in any sense be considered to interfere with the judiciary's functions or to curtail its powers.

It maintained that the law was not in any way inconsistent with the Constitution.
The reply noted that the SC had itself conceded that there were difficulties with the formation of benches in cases of suo motu notice taken by the CJP.

It was further argued that many cases were not scheduled for months. The response added that there were also instances where the appeals of the accused had been scheduled after the execution of the case.

The response concluded with the government asking the SC to reject the petitions filed against the Act.

In its application for the full court, the government noted it had requested that the petitions be heard by all the  judges of the court because of the paramount importance of the constitutional questions involved and the fact that it was a case of first impression.

“The parliament passed the [law] in exercise of its powers under the Constitution while fully cognisant of the principles of separation of power and constitutional command to secure independence of the judiciary,” the application added.

According to the petition, the government hoped that the full court would be able to resolve the issue in the fairest and most transparent manner possible, in the interest of upholding the rule of law and independence of the judiciary.